87
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
87 points (97.8% liked)
Asklemmy
42601 readers
1221 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
"Critical Thinking" was already taken, so I'll go with my similar-but-different answer of critical evaluation of sources/information. When I was a kid, we were never to let anyone in when home alone, even to just use the phone. We were told never to believe anyone on the other side of that door that wasn't family or emergency services (and even then to call the neighbors in the latter case). Today, so many of the same people who told me this are fooled by dis- and mis-information online or believe very poor sources. Sometimes, it does fall into the trap of "my sister/brother/pet albatros shared it so it must be true!" of thinking the source is already verifies. We all should get better at this.
I've experienced this phenomenon as well and I'm always wondering if people become more naïve as they age or if this is, in fact, too much information for people from another era to process.
I think it also has to do with how previous generations established what they considered trustworthy or not.
Most of the time, the only way to confirm information would be to go to the library and look it up. Most people weren't taking the time to do that for every little factoid, especially ones that had no direct effect on their lives.
So if Jim who has a cousin who works in construction said that Mexicans were undercutting the expected pay for construction laborers, picking up all the jobs they could, and out performing their peers... well that's first hand information from someone who would know (by way of the game of telephone).
And that doesn't effect them directly in any way, so it's not being blasted to the whole world. You may never know they have this belief.
Now they see Jim on Facebook sharing some article. Well, Jim wouldn't share it unless he was sure it was true. I mean, his cousin works in construction. Combine that with sensational headlines to maximize clicks and now you go from racist belief that immigrants are industrious to "illegal immigrants are stealing our jobs"!
Plus, spreading the word can be done in a single click, regardless of relevance to any conversation.
So you combine the idea of "that person knows what they're talking about" with sensationalism mills and how damn easy it is to blast your stupid ideas out to the world with the idea that you'e just letting people know, and I think you very easily end up here.